Re: Remove support for old realpath() API

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove support for old realpath() API
Date: 2024-08-06 05:43:00
Message-ID: ZrG35H6yZG0GbJ7g@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 10:08:04AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>> We don't seem to have any mentions of POSIX or SuS in docs, in the
>> installation sections. There are a few mentions of POSIX-1.2008 and
>> POSIX-1.2001 it in the commit log, though, where we require features
>> specified by those. Can we rely on everything from POSIX-1-2008
>> nowadays, or is it more on a case-by-case basis, depending on which
>> parts of POSIX are supported by various platforms?
>
> I'd say it's still case-by-case. Perhaps everything in POSIX-1.2008
> is supported now on every platform we care about, but perhaps not.

Just pointing at the message where this has been discussed previously,
for reference:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1457809.1662232534@sss.pgh.pa.us

Leaving Solaris aside because there is nothing older than 11 in the
buildfarm currently, I am dubious that it is a good idea to remove
this code knowing that we have a thread from a few months ago about
the fact that we have folks complaining about AIX support and that we
should bring it back:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CY5PR11MB63928CC05906F27FB10D74D0FD322@CY5PR11MB6392.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2024-08-06 05:48:11 Re: Do we still need parent column in pg_backend_memory_context?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-08-06 05:36:03 Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed